Va'a v The King - [2025] NZCA 473

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA312/2025
[2025] NZCA 473

BETWEEN	VA’A VA’A Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 August 2025
Court:	Cooke, Brewer and Harvey JJ
Counsel:	B A Mugisho and B C S Moyer for Appellant K S Li and C R Armstrong for Respondent
Judgment:	17 September 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harvey J)

On 1 May 2025, Judge Andrée-Wiltens sentenced Va’a Va’a to 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to one charge of importing methamphetamine.[1] Mr Va’a appeals his sentence on two principal grounds: first, the starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment was too high considering Mr Va’a’s limited role in the offending; and second, the total discounts of 25 per cent were too low and failed to properly reflect Mr Va’a’s guilty plea, cultural background and remorse.
[1]R v Va’a [2025] NZDC 9885 [judgment under appeal].
The Crown opposes the appeal and submits the starting point was within range, the discounts were appropriate and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The offending

The Judge summarised the offending as follows:
[2]       In August of 2023 two consignments were sent addressed to you at your address with your phone number attached, and those consignments contained 49.43 kilograms of methamphetamine. You say that you already had a [Customs] client code. The prosecution say that as part of the arrangements here that you created that. I do not know what the situation is. But, nevertheless, you had a code which enabled the drugs to be sent to you.
[3]       You provided your name, your address, phone number and there were a number of communications between you and an individual by the name of Pako Brendo about the importation of these drugs including one question which concerned about how fast you could open a box with a vacuum sealer inside it. The prosecution says that that means that you had full knowledge of what was going on here, that you were importing drugs, and you have admitted as much.
[4]       You were also communicating with a logistics company to try and find out what had happened to the shipment and with New Zealand Customs trying to find out when the delivery was going to be cleared, and at one point you sent a text saying: “Just want to make sure I'm home to catch it.” That is one of only a very few texts left on your phone in relation to this matter because you have deleted the others. Goodness only knows what they would have said.
“Pako Brendo” was later identified as Patrick Maeva, Mr Va’a’s co-defendant.

Approach on appeal

An appeal against sentence proceeds as of right pursuant to s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Such an appeal may be allowed if this Court is satisfied there has been an error in the sentence appealed from and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Va'a v The King

Details

AGLC: Va'a v The King [2025] NZCA 473
Case: [2025] NZCA 473
Decision Date: 17 September 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Va’a v The King, Va’a Va’a appealed his 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment sentence for importing methamphetamine. Va’a argued that the starting point of 15 years was too high considering his limited role in the offending and that the total discounts of 25 per cent were too low and failed to properly reflect his guilty plea, cultural background and remorse. The Crown opposed the appeal, submitting that the starting point was within range, the discounts were appropriate, and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments and found that Va’a’s role in the offending was significant, and the starting point of 15 years was appropriate. The Court also found that the Judge properly considered the discounts for a guilty plea, cultural and personal factors, and remorse. The Judge found that Va’a’s remorse was not genuine, as it came very late, and only when he finally realised the gravity of the offending and the impact of his incarceration on his family. The Court of Appeal found no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal. The final orders were that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders